Trying to understand what you're getting at..... Yes, I was talking about things like the DNA complexity. Yes, I would say that something is only living in our physical world when it is animate or alive by it's normal condition beating heart, blood flow, brain function etc. I believe that we have a soul that can exist without a body.......is that what you're referring to? But a soul can have consciousness and not physical life in this dimension. Are you equating the "mind" to the brain in your example? Not sure how you get to "life isn't complex......based on the physical". Please take another stab at helping me understand your point.

No, when I refer to a (disembodied) "mind" I'm equating it to what you would call a soul/spirit. The brain is just the physical vehicle that houses it. I'm trying to gauge what you consider to be living regarding the physical body of a human, if it has no "soul" to animate it, because as far as I am conserned all that is left is a corpse. Also, The soul isn't subject to the physical, and therefore isn't subject to DNA....., and therefore isn't subject to this complexity you see which draws you to believe there is a designer. Were early humans and their ancestors not living because they didn't have a soul, or were they physically living without a soul?

You see, I see this as a very confusing issue. Dualism adds in this new dimension, yet it does't fit in anywhere in evolution. Suddenly, physical beings with a soul are alive due to the soul, which can exist independently of the physical body, but is the physical body still classed as alive without the soul? Evolution would tell us that, yes, physical bodies are classed as alive because the science behind it doesn't make this jump into the unevidenced assertion of dualism. You do, and I want to know where you fit this in, why you think it is needed, and why you think a consiousness, such as that possessed by humans, can't arise due to the "complex" natural process of evolution which you believe your god set up in the first place anyway?

Also, I haven't gone from "life isn't complex....based on the physical". That would be your quote mine. What I actually said was:

Therefore, "life", in the instance of humans, isn't complex at all if you're talking DNA, because it isn't based on physicality, but spirituality (whatever that is).

I'm saying that if you consider humans to only be alive because they are animated by the non-physical soul, then human life isn't down to the complexity of DNA, only the physical inanimate body is. So, to paraphrase the question again, is a human body by itself living without a soul to animate it?

« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 03:04:43 AM by Ataraxia »

Logged

Christian: "My faith grows every day."Atheist: "So does rhubarb, and for the same reason."

I don't see how according to the terms of this field the argument could be won either way, at least from my limited study it appears that modern Christianity on the large relies on a relationship with "God" to achieve any kind of "evidence". Some of the people in their very approach are desiring to refute and disprove any proof that comes their way towards either conclusion. This is a documented psychological impediment to objectivity, and therefor to finding truth.

If you are predisposed to think the world is flat, you'll find a way to keep it that way. If I show you photos, you'd say they are a hoax. If I travel east and come around the other side of the world, if you are truly committed to the idea of a flat earth you will find a way that I faked it.

If you are claiming that you know the only method in which "truth" is discovered and proved, then you appear to have the same problem that you imply I have. That you somehow have been endowed with the "truth", or at least the only method of its discovery. Honestly now, couldn't you also have a predisposition toward atheism? Wouldn't that in fact shape the very questions that you ask and what answers you will allow as evidence? Might this also be a "psychological impediment to objectivity"?

Trying to understand what you're getting at..... Yes, I was talking about things like the DNA complexity. Yes, I would say that something is only living in our physical world when it is animate or alive by it's normal condition beating heart, blood flow, brain function etc. I believe that we have a soul that can exist without a body.......is that what you're referring to? But a soul can have consciousness and not physical life in this dimension. Are you equating the "mind" to the brain in your example? Not sure how you get to "life isn't complex......based on the physical". Please take another stab at helping me understand your point.

No, when I refer to a (disembodied) "mind" I'm equating it to what you would call a soul/spirit. The brain is just the physical vehicle that houses it. I'm trying to gauge what you consider to be living regarding the physical body of a human, if it has no "soul" to animate it, because as far as I am conserned all that is left is a corpse. Also, The soul isn't subject to the physical, and therefore isn't subject to DNA....., and therefore isn't subject to this complexity you see which draws you to believe there is a designer. Were early humans and their ancestors not living because they didn't have a soul, or were they physically living without a soul?

You see, I see this as a very confusing issue. Dualism adds in this new dimension, yet it does't fit in anywhere in evolution. Suddenly, physical beings with a soul are alive due to the soul, which can exist independently of the physical body, but is the physical body still classed as alive without the soul? Evolution would tell us that, yes, physical bodies are classed as alive because the science behind it doesn't make this jump into the unevidenced assertion of dualism. You do, and I want to know where you fit this in, why you think it is needed, and why you think a consiousness, such as that possessed by humans, can't arise due to the "complex" natural process of evolution which you believe your god set up in the first place anyway?

Also, I haven't gone from "life isn't complex....based on the physical". That would be your quote mine. What I actually said was:

Therefore, "life", in the instance of humans, isn't complex at all if you're talking DNA, because it isn't based on physicality, but spirituality (whatever that is).

I'm saying that if you consider humans to only be alive because they are animated by the non-physical soul, then human life isn't down to the complexity of DNA, only the physical inanimate body is. So, to paraphrase the question again, is a human body by itself living without a soul to animate it?

Ok, thanks. I'll clarify my belief for you and we can go from there. Some of this (especially regarding animals) is my own personal belief, based on the bible and observation of life. Life on earth with a soul and living body = Humans Life on earth without a soul = Plants and some lower animals, reptiles, insects, etc. Life on earth with soulish aspects = Animals that can relate to humans. Dogs, primates, dolphins, etcEternal life, with a soul and eventual resurrected body = Those humans accepting of Christ's attonement for sinEternal death, consciousness without a body, soul only = Those human souls separated from God for all eternity.

My statement about the complexity of life was in regard to the observable life on earth, including plants, animals, humans. Also the complexity revealed to us through science and the microscopic organisms that can be observed with modern technology. It was not a statement about the immaterial soul.

I believe that the soul and body are joined together as long as the body is alive. But the soul never dies. The body dies. I do not believe that humans evolved from lower life formsI believe in special creation as stated in the Genesis account. That God made the body, and breathed life (soul) into Adam. I believe that while God could have made the earth and all life in 6 literal days, I don't see the evidence that He did it that way. I consider my beliefs to be old earth, old universe, special creation by God.

I am sitting here reading this with my two doggies. Boy are they relieved to find out that they have personality and consciousness and, if not exactly a soul, kind of a soul-lite: a "soulish quality."[1] Since dogs can't accept Jesus and therefore won't go to heaven, why did god bother to give them a "soulish quality"?

Seems like a waste of good soul material. Unless dogs, dolphins and apes got the defective or moldy souls; souls still lying around after the "sell by" dates get stuck into select non-humans. Reduce, reuse, recycle, god style.

We still are not clear on what exactly the soul is-- and how anyone knows what it is. If the soul is part of the brain, then it is physical. But if the soul is not physical, then it should not be affected by something like brain damage, aging, drug use etc. If the soul is the consciousness, then the soul gets damaged when the brain is damaged. When a person is in a coma, their soul is also in a coma, right? The soul should stay the same all the time. So what part of the person is their soul?

Anyone read about Koko the Gorilla's conversations in sign language and tell me that only humans have a soul, ie personality and consciousness. That gorilla has more on the ball than a lot of humans I have met.

I don't see how according to the terms of this field the argument could be won either way, at least from my limited study it appears that modern Christianity on the large relies on a relationship with "God" to achieve any kind of "evidence". Some of the people in their very approach are desiring to refute and disprove any proof that comes their way towards either conclusion. This is a documented psychological impediment to objectivity, and therefor to finding truth.

If you are predisposed to think the world is flat, you'll find a way to keep it that way. If I show you photos, you'd say they are a hoax. If I travel east and come around the other side of the world, if you are truly committed to the idea of a flat earth you will find a way that I faked it.

If you are claiming that you know the only method in which "truth" is discovered and proved, then you appear to have the same problem that you imply I have. That you somehow have been endowed with the "truth", or at least the only method of its discovery. Honestly now, couldn't you also have a predisposition toward atheism? Wouldn't that in fact shape the very questions that you ask and what answers you will allow as evidence? Might this also be a "psychological impediment to objectivity"?

It MAY be an impediment, but Christ tells you to get the beam out of your own eye, prior to telling others about their splinters. Trying to turn the argument around, does not fix the problem that the situation is not necessarily binary : atheist vs Brand X Christianity. You imply that you eliminated other religions, therefore what's left must be the true one. If all are false, the logic doesn't work.

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

I don't see how according to the terms of this field the argument could be won either way, at least from my limited study it appears that modern Christianity on the large relies on a relationship with "God" to achieve any kind of "evidence". Some of the people in their very approach are desiring to refute and disprove any proof that comes their way towards either conclusion. This is a documented psychological impediment to objectivity, and therefor to finding truth.

If you are predisposed to think the world is flat, you'll find a way to keep it that way. If I show you photos, you'd say they are a hoax. If I travel east and come around the other side of the world, if you are truly committed to the idea of a flat earth you will find a way that I faked it.

If you are claiming that you know the only method in which "truth" is discovered and proved, then you appear to have the same problem that you imply I have. That you somehow have been endowed with the "truth",

Not the same. Why? Because scientific method actually produces results. That basic.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Eternal life, with a soul and eventual resurrected body = Those humans accepting of Christ's attonement for sin

There is no requirement for a soul, if a person is bodily resurrected, since the brain contains the person. Christianity seems to have those who believed in resurrection, and those who thought we would be as angels.

Quote

Eternal death, consciousness without a body, soul only = Those human souls separated from God for all eternity.

Since you have now revealed that you are a creationist, I take it that you revere Revelation, which says people experience the "second death". This is also consistent with the book of Enoch, where souls are slain, and Matthew, which states body and soul can be destroyed in hell.

The state that you describe - a disembodied soul - is most likely a description of Ego Death, which occurs during trips on hallucinogenic drugs, like LSD, DMT, Ketamine. This is not something which is consistent with Christianity, because (a) you are supposed to burn (b) supposed to have a second death, anyway (c) Christianity never mentions eternity, because the concept was unknown to them.

Where do you get your revised version of religion from, whilst at the same time holding onto special creation?

Quote

I believe that the soul and body are joined together as long as the body is alive. But the soul never dies. The body dies.

Soul is a Greek idea. You've just expressed that animals have sub-souls. This idea came from Aristotle. The Hebrews had Nefesh; they believed that animals (and just about everything) were animated by a life force. Greek Christians then incorporated their soul, possibly against the will of Jews, who believed in whole body resurrection. They needed whole body resurrection, for their theory to work.

Quote

I do not believe that humans evolved from lower life forms

Well, you've got a credibility problem. Jesus referred to Adam as the beginning. Christianity is incompatible with an old Earth perspective. Hindus and Buddhists can cope with it, because they believe in continual rebirth and development.

Quote

I believe in special creation as stated in the Genesis account. That God made the body, and breathed life (soul) into Adam.

God breathed Nephesh into Adam. He had to, because he was mud. Nephesh made Adam's dust alive. Soul is something that Greeks came up with, because they didn't know about the brain. It was a long time before people knew that the heart was not the centre of thought.

Quote

I believe that while God could have made the earth and all life in 6 literal days, I don't see the evidence that He did it that way.

Correct. Therefore Jesus, a God, was incorrect to endorse a model which put Adam at the beginning of it.

There is no requirement for a soul, if a person is bodily resurrected, since the brain contains the person. Christianity seems to have those who believed in resurrection, and those who thought we would be as angels.

Since you have now revealed that you are a creationist, I take it that you revere Revelation, which says people experience the "second death". This is also consistent with the book of Enoch, where souls are slain, and Matthew, which states body and soul can be destroyed in hell.

The state that you describe - a disembodied soul - is most likely a description of Ego Death, which occurs during trips on hallucinogenic drugs, like LSD, DMT, Ketamine. This is not something which is consistent with Christianity, because (a) you are supposed to burn (b) supposed to have a second death, anyway (c) Christianity never mentions eternity, because the concept was unknown to them.

Where do you get your revised version of religion from, whilst at the same time holding onto special creation?

Soul is a Greek idea. You've just expressed that animals have sub-souls. This idea came from Aristotle. The Hebrews had Nefesh; they believed that animals (and just about everything) were animated by a life force. Greek Christians then incorporated their soul, possibly against the will of Jews, who believed in whole body resurrection. They needed whole body resurrection, for their theory to work.

Well, you've got a credibility problem. Jesus referred to Adam as the beginning. Christianity is incompatible with an old Earth perspective. Hindus and Buddhists can cope with it, because they believe in continual rebirth and development.

God breathed Nephesh into Adam. He had to, because he was mud. Nephesh made Adam's dust alive. Soul is something that Greeks came up with, because they didn't know about the brain. It was a long time before people knew that the heart was not the centre of thought.

Correct. Therefore Jesus, a God, was incorrect to endorse a model which put Adam at the beginning of it.

1 Corinthians 15 20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when He comes, those who belong to Him.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.20:15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Daniel 12:2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

Job chapters 14 and 19 Though poetic, seem to indicate that Job believes in an afterlife. Written well before Plato.

2 Samuel 12: 22-23 King David indicated that he believed in the afterlife. Written well before Plato.

BTW.....How is Christianity incompatible with an old earth perspective? I realize that there are many young earth christians, but there are also old earth christians like me who believe that death was occurring prior to the garden of eden. So old earth, but special creation of man in the garden, starting with Adam. I don't (think) that perspective gives me a credibility problem.

It MAY be an impediment, but Christ tells you to get the beam out of your own eye, prior to telling others about their splinters. Trying to turn the argument around, does not fix the problem that the situation is not necessarily binary : atheist vs Brand X Christianity. You imply that you eliminated other religions, therefore what's left must be the true one. If all are false, the logic doesn't work.

The "beam out of your eye" lesson goes both ways though. Who is turning the argument around? You or me? Even saying that "there can't be just one true religion" is a truth claim equal to "all religions are false" claim. Everyone is making truth claims, no matter what perspective you come from. It really does go both ways......... do you agree?

BTW.....How is Christianity incompatible with an old earth perspective? I realize that there are many young earth christians, but there are also old earth christians like me who believe that death was occurring prior to the garden of eden. So old earth, but special creation of man in the garden, starting with Adam. I don't (think) that perspective gives me a credibility problem.

One Christian believes that sin, death, decay came after A&E ate the fruit.

How is Christianity incompatible with old Earth perspective? Maybe this will put it in perspective. The Flat Earth Society[1] put in thier mission statement (paraphrased) : If you believe something that contradicts the Bible, you're saying you know better than God. So you're going to spend eternity, not with God, but with the first one whom decided they knew better than Him. ie. Lucifer

To know the 'truth' we have to compare what the bible says to the evidence. The evidence points to a spherical old Earth. Comming from an All-Knowing God, this is a major blunder. Either God is a willful liar, or it was just written by ignorant people that didn't know what they were talking about. If something is 99% truth and 1% lie, it is still a lie. Someone that lies once and gets away with it, is more likely to lie again. With Genesis one riddled with so many lies, and this being the foundation of the Bible, to read any further, to put belief in anything that follows is like trying to build a house on a ruined foundation.

Do I know better than YHWH? I know he's either a liar, or made up. Who knows, maybe he lied about Heaven and Hell as well? I don't need to prove he doesn't exist, just know that it is foolish to follow someone that pushes known lies as 'truth.'

You have some good point here which ought to be taken on board by Patrick. Yes, it is essential that we deal in evidence and I am certain that for everything else other than religion, Patrick sticks with proper evidence, whether buying insurance or any of the million or so things we do each day. So I think he needs to answer -

1. Why do you, Patrick, ignore the evidence that science brings from vast man hours of research and chose a timescale taken from biblical texts - texts which were never intended to give a timescale.

2. Why do you think - that's on what evidence - the bible describes the generation of the earth and its inhabitants better that science does?

3. Since you are now quoting your bible as evidence, could you start a new thread to show us the evidence that the bible is a reliable source of facts.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Ok, thanks. I'll clarify my belief for you and we can go from there. Some of this (especially regarding animals) is my own personal belief, based on the bible and observation of life.

Why would you do that? The bible doesn't demonstrate anything regarding animals and life, it merely asserts stuff - stuff that has been shown to be wrong. Just stick with what's been observed instead of adding in this unwarranted claim to authority and you'll avoid all of this contradiction and compartmentalising.

Quote

Life on earth with a soul and living body = Humans

So the human body is living without a soul?

Quote

Life on earth without a soul = Plants and some lower animals, reptiles, insects, etc.

OK, so these animals all manage to be have a living body without a soul.

Quote

Life on earth with soulish aspects = Animals that can relate to humans. Dogs, primates, dolphins, etc

"Soulish"?! WTF is that? Can you not see what you're doing here - did it not spring out to you as you typed it? It's as if you are grading the notion of having a soul. You've turned something, which is a digital position, into an analogue position. Surely you either have a soul or not. If you're saying that these animals manage to exude "soulish" qualities, then it points to the idea that nature alone has the ability to evolve these qualities. Why then, do you put a halt to that and claim that for it to be a full, blown out soul, god has to stick his oar in and intervene?You believe nature was created by god anyway, so finding it difficult to harmonise the qualities of a full soul with nature is just saying that you believe god couldn't (or wouldn't) create nature in the first place to allow for a full soul to be a product of nature. It's a very strange idea - an idea, that to me, is there to fit with what you believe, but only because you haven't thought about it properly.

Think about it: God creates nature;Nature includes evolution;Evolution has the ability to create "soulish" qualities;Evolution doesn't have the ability to create a soul;God has to intervene in the nature he created for bodies to harbour a soul.

And he couldn't have created nature in the first place to be able to create a soul because.....because it fits your belief system for him not to. It really is convoluted nonsense.

Quote

Eternal life, with a soul and eventual resurrected body = Those humans accepting of Christ's attonement for sin

What is the resurrected body made of? Is it physical or non-physical? If the former, how does it differ from our current body - and is it classed as alive without a soul, and if it is the latter, how does it differ from a soul?

Quote

Eternal death, consciousness without a body, soul only = Those human souls separated from God for all eternity.

Right, so it is clear from this that a soul by itself is alive. This means that humans alive now in this world are alive twice if the human body is classed as alive even without a soul, which you do as you have stated above with "living body". Why is this necessary for humans, and why don't all these other animals that don't have a soul not get the chance to have an eternal life, just because they haven't evolved enough for god to interject and stick a soul in their bodies? It's almost as if the ability to have "soul" qualities follows evolution via natural selection....

Quote

My statement about the complexity of life was in regard to the observable life on earth, including plants, animals, humans. Also the complexity revealed to us through science and the microscopic organisms that can be observed with modern technology. It was not a statement about the immaterial soul.

This brings us back to your original statement, where you stated that the complexity of life draws you to believe there is a designer, and I pondered whether you would still be drawn to believe there was a designer even if you didn't consider life complex. From what you have said, the answer is clearly yes, because you believe that life also exists as an immaterial soul. Your only get out is to say that an immaterial soul is also complex life, but if you were to do that then you pop off into infinite regress by being drawn to believe there is a god designer and creator.

Quote

I believe that the soul and body are joined together as long as the body is alive. But the soul never dies. The body dies.

Then the body is, and always has been, redundant. Souls don't need bodies to be alive - bodies need souls to be alive, but then you simultaneously believe that bodies are also alive without a soul. This is all very confusing. You must really have to do some Olympic gold style mental gymnastics to square all these circles you have created for yourself.

Quote

I do not believe that humans evolved from lower life forms

Why wouldn't you? You look at observable life and don't think humans evolved from "lower" (whatever that means) life forms? You must be looking at a different reality to me. Oh no, wait, I see what you're doing. You're looking at observable life and it doesn't square with what the bible says, and since you think the bible supersedes anything you observe, you go with that and chuck out anything that contradicts it, even glaringly so. Seriously, just chuck the bible out. It is wrong, plain and simple. If not, and you're going to stick with it, please don't come on here pretending that you are using observable life in order to gain an understanding of life and evolution.

Quote

I believe in special creation as stated in the Genesis account. That God made the body, and breathed life (soul) into Adam.

*Ad hom aware*

Then you're an idiot. Sorry, but you are. Like I've said already, you believe that god has to intervene in his own creation in order for a soul to exist in this world, and you base this all on words written in a book - a book for which you believe is divinely inspired. It's circular, unevidenced, faith based tosh.

Quote

I believe that while God could have made the earth and all life in 6 literal days, I don't see the evidence that He did it that way. I consider my beliefs to be old earth, old universe, special creation by God.

This is more evidence that goes to show that all you are doing is believing what you believe because you want to believe it. Yes, god could have done anything any way he wanted. You are taking bits from what we have discovered (old earth, old universe) and ignoring what the bible states about that, even though you acknowledge that god could have made the earth in a literal 6 days. However, then on the other hand, you are ignoring what we have discovered (human evolution) and take a punt on what the bible says about how humans have come about.

This belief system of yours is all of your own making. You really are just believing what you want to believe, no matter how contradictory it is and no matter how much it goes against what can be observed and measured. This is the big problem that all theists face, all because they believe in an all powerful, omnipotent being that can do anything. You see, at some point you all go, "well, he could've done that, but he didn't, and I know this because my special ancient text tells me so". Then you get the cherry pickers like yourself, who are pinning everything on this text, but only on occasion. I despair, really I do.

Life on earth with a soul and living body = Humans Life on earth without a soul = Plants and some lower animals, reptiles, insects, etc. Life on earth with soulish aspects = Animals that can relate to humans. Dogs, primates, dolphins, etc

The "soulish quality" is reeeeeealy problematic. Do severely mentally handicapped people--who are clearly human beings by DNA and any other scientific measure-- have only "soulish qualities", but not real souls? Are "soulish qualities" enough to get you into heaven? Does that mean there is hope for dogs after all?[1]

What about people who used to function normally but have sustained brain damage or dementia? What about people in permanent comas--they used to have a soul, but where is their soul now? Where does the soul go when the brain is messed up, if the soul is not part of the brain? If their soul goes to heaven, what exactly about them goes to heaven--the pre-dementia part or the one that only sits and stares?

Either-- as many religious folks would have us believe-- all humans (and only humans, no other beings) have non-physical souls and these souls exist in some non-earth realm undetectable by science, or there are no such things as souls and humans are just a different type of animal. Smarter than most of the others, very social, great at communicating, but pretty limited in general: not as fast as cheetahs, middling eyesight, poor hearing, limited sense of smell, can't fly at all, not as long-lived as tortoises, can't live underwater, sees things that don't exist, often dies in producing young. A specialized, adaptable animal with advanced capacities and high intelligence, but still an animal.

Because if the soul is non-physical, maybe magically inserted into the human at conception by god or something like that, it cannot be related to anything physical about the person; it has to be separate from their DNA, their intelligence or their personality. What kind of soul we get is entirely up to god. It is god who decides to give one person the soul of a serial killer and another person the soul of a saint.

If the souls are not different, each customized and based on what god wants to insert, then the souls are all the same. The soul of a wonderful, kind, and caring person who devotes their life to helping others is the same as the soul of a horrible sociopathic serial rapist and murderer. That suggests the nature of the person has nothing to do with their soul. Unless someone is going to try to argue that we inherit our souls in our DNA somehow.

But we know that we inherit our physical brains from our ancestors, and much of our personalities are encoded in our DNA. After that, our physical environment (also "inherited" in a way, because we are born into a particular time and place, and don't create the environment ourselves) determines what we are able to do in our lives with what we have inherited.

It is hard to see where a god-given magical soul has any part in the human experience.

1. DNA and normal development is what makes a human - just like we know already

2. LIfe after death requires the person to survive which in effect requires the patterns of neurons and so on

3. The soul is a spiritual pen drive ready to written to as needed and provided at fertilization to back-up the person at any time needed.

4. Shortly before death, all the patterns of neurons (in effect all the memories and personality) are copied to the soul which can then take flight with the data at death and be ready to hand the personality on to either a new body or a spirit body.

5. Once copying is done, the soul returns to the next newly fertilized human to perform the same fuction again.

OK, anyone got any problems with my theory?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

"Soulish"?! WTF is that? Can you not see what you're doing here - did it not spring out to you as you typed it? It's as if you are grading the notion of having a soul. You've turned something, which is a digital position, into an analogue position. Surely you either have a soul or not. If you're saying that these animals manage to exude "soulish" qualities, then it points to the idea that nature alone has the ability to evolve these qualities. Why then, do you put a halt to that and claim that for it to be a full, blown out soul, god has to stick his oar in and intervene?You believe nature was created by god anyway, so finding it difficult to harmonise the qualities of a full soul with nature is just saying that you believe god couldn't (or wouldn't) create nature in the first place to allow for a full soul to be a product of nature. It's a very strange idea - an idea, that to me, is there to fit with what you believe, but only because you haven't thought about it properly.

Think about it: God creates nature;Nature includes evolution;Evolution has the ability to create "soulish" qualities;Evolution doesn't have the ability to create a soul;God has to intervene in the nature he created for bodies to harbour a soul.

And he couldn't have created nature in the first place to be able to create a soul because.....because it fits your belief system for him not to. It really is convoluted nonsense.

Quote

I believe in special creation as stated in the Genesis account. That God made the body, and breathed life (soul) into Adam.

*Ad hom aware*

Then you're an idiot. Sorry, but you are. Like I've said already, you believe that god has to intervene in his own creation in order for a soul to exist in this world, and you base this all on words written in a book - a book for which you believe is divinely inspired. It's circular, unevidenced, faith based tosh.

So that doesn't make me an idiot. I'm not alone in my belief that human evolution may not be the case. There are plenty of very smart people who don't believe in human evolution. Your statement makes you sound rude, arrogant, and unwilling to have civil discourse. I was polite to you and never resorted to calling you names even though I disagree with you. If you are able to present your views without name calling then we can continue. If not, then tell me now and we can be done.

It sounds like a lot of your objections are based on a misunderstanding of what I was saying.I never said that there is human life without a soul. You were suggesting that human life cannot exist without a soul to animate it. I don't believe that is ever the case for human beings. I base my belief on what the bible says, that God breathed life into Adam in the garden. I take that to mean more than just a breath of O2 followed by a heartbeat. I say that because the bible also speaks over and over about life after death. Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

As far as animals go. What I meant by "Soulish" qualities is that some animals can relate to human beings better than others. It doesn't mean soul in the context that animals have eternal life. So don't read more into that statement. I don't know that the bible teaches anything about animals having souls like humans or an "analog" version of a soul. Regardless, "nature alone" doesn't do anything without the Creator. So I don't buy into the nature idea as if nature has a mind or a will to create something. That is ridiculous to me, and in a negative way points me away from atheism to begin with. It just goes against my common sense that a mindless, faceless, invisible quality that many people dub as "nature", can create things and produce the physical complexity that we can observe in our world, without an intelligent force behind it. Sounds an awful lot like belief of something greater than ourselves like we find in religion. If I choose religion, then I will call it that. Since I do, then I choose Christianity for the reasons stated it the beginning of this thread.

One Christian believes that sin, death, decay came after A&E ate the fruit.

How is Christianity incompatible with old Earth perspective? Maybe this will put it in perspective. The Flat Earth Society[1] put in thier mission statement (paraphrased) : If you believe something that contradicts the Bible, you're saying you know better than God. So you're going to spend eternity, not with God, but with the first one whom decided they knew better than Him. ie. Lucifer

To know the 'truth' we have to compare what the bible says to the evidence. The evidence points to a spherical old Earth. Comming from an All-Knowing God, this is a major blunder. Either God is a willful liar, or it was just written by ignorant people that didn't know what they were talking about. If something is 99% truth and 1% lie, it is still a lie. Someone that lies once and gets away with it, is more likely to lie again. With Genesis one riddled with so many lies, and this being the foundation of the Bible, to read any further, to put belief in anything that follows is like trying to build a house on a ruined foundation.

Do I know better than YHWH? I know he's either a liar, or made up. Who knows, maybe he lied about Heaven and Hell as well? I don't need to prove he doesn't exist, just know that it is foolish to follow someone that pushes known lies as 'truth.'

I've always taken references to "flat earth" in the bible as figurative expressions to make a larger point. We do that in our language today. You read it differently I take it. There are also expressions that seem to indicate a spherical earth. So again.....usually in the context of a larger point.

The "soulish quality" is reeeeeealy problematic. Do severely mentally handicapped people--who are clearly human beings by DNA and any other scientific measure-- have only "soulish qualities", but not real souls? Are "soulish qualities" enough to get you into heaven? Does that mean there is hope for dogs after all?[1]

What about people who used to function normally but have sustained brain damage or dementia? What about people in permanent comas--they used to have a soul, but where is their soul now? Where does the soul go when the brain is messed up, if the soul is not part of the brain? If their soul goes to heaven, what exactly about them goes to heaven--the pre-dementia part or the one that only sits and stares?

Either-- as many religious folks would have us believe-- all humans (and only humans, no other beings) have non-physical souls and these souls exist in some non-earth realm undetectable by science, or there are no such things as souls and humans are just a different type of animal. Smarter than most of the others, very social, great at communicating, but pretty limited in general: not as fast as cheetahs, middling eyesight, poor hearing, limited sense of smell, can't fly at all, not as long-lived as tortoises, can't live underwater, sees things that don't exist, often dies in producing young. A specialized, adaptable animal with advanced capacities and high intelligence, but still an animal.

Because if the soul is non-physical, maybe magically inserted into the human at conception by god or something like that, it cannot be related to anything physical about the person; it has to be separate from their DNA, their intelligence or their personality. What kind of soul we get is entirely up to god. It is god who decides to give one person the soul of a serial killer and another person the soul of a saint.

If the souls are not different, each customized and based on what god wants to insert, then the souls are all the same. The soul of a wonderful, kind, and caring person who devotes their life to helping others is the same as the soul of a horrible sociopathic serial rapist and murderer. That suggests the nature of the person has nothing to do with their soul. Unless someone is going to try to argue that we inherit our souls in our DNA somehow.

But we know that we inherit our physical brains from our ancestors, and much of our personalities are encoded in our DNA. After that, our physical environment (also "inherited" in a way, because we are born into a particular time and place, and don't create the environment ourselves) determines what we are able to do in our lives with what we have inherited.

It is hard to see where a god-given magical soul has any part in the human experience.

If dogs are going to be there, maybe I'd better start going to church so I have a shot at heaven, too!

It's not problematic if God is the creator of all souls. I'm not saying that it's based on human evolution or intelligence. I know that I can't prove there is a soul to you. It's really an existential idea. But that is my argument from the beginning. That I believe there is more to us than just the physical, so to prove that in purely physical scientific methods, IS problematic. So if you don't accept that, then it ends there. If you are willing to entertain the idea that your self awareness is more than physical, then we can talk at the same level. So for the record, I think that a soul comes from God and exists eternally with people, and as far as I can tell, it is a biblical concept.

I've always taken references to "flat earth" in the bible as figurative expressions to make a larger point. We do that in our language today. You read it differently I take it. There are also expressions that seem to indicate a spherical earth. So again.....usually in the context of a larger point.

What? "He looks upon the circle of the Earth?" You think a plate[1] is the same thing as a ball[2]? Foxy Freedom posted how the earth looks as described in Hebrew mythology... err the Perfect Infallible Bible. And by some sheer coincidence all thier contempories had similar cosmologies. When people use the Bible to prove that the Earth is flat for over 2,000 years, yet somehow after two millenia you're the only one who figured it out? That while Chaldeans used the same descriptions, even the Book of Enoch written by the very person that walked with God. Yet, for all them, it was literal as they believed in a flat Earth, but the Jews had it right despite the similarities?

"He streaches the sky above the Earth like a tent." I know you'll try to twist it to fit into our current understanding, but back then people really thought the sky aka Firmament was a solid object holding up an ocean of water[3] and when holes appeared in it, it rained. They couldn't understand that if you got 13 inches of rain, it would cause a wall of water rushing down a river like a dam had burst. They thought floods were caused by celestial "flood gates" placed near the horizon.

There are no expressions that indicate a spherical Earth in the Bible. Each and every single author thought the Earth was flat and it seeped into thier Myths. As I said, you'll take modern understanding and try to make the verses fit, but if it were true then Christians would have already known that the Earth is a spheroid. Instead what we got were people who dared suggest that the Earth was spherical and/or orbited the sun were arrested and some put to death for heresey by the Church. The reason they said something to begin with even though it went against everything they were taught to believe in? Evidence, and spreading the truth is more important that believeing a lie.

I've always taken references to "flat earth" in the bible as figurative expressions to make a larger point. We do that in our language today. You read it differently I take it. There are also expressions that seem to indicate a spherical earth. So again.....usually in the context of a larger point.

What? "He looks upon the circle of the Earth?" You think a plate[1] is the same thing as a ball[2]? Foxy Freedom posted how the earth looks as described in Hebrew mythology... err the Perfect Infallible Bible. And by some sheer coincidence all thier contempories had similar cosmologies. When people use the Bible to prove that the Earth is flat for over 2,000 years, yet somehow after two millenia you're the only one who figured it out? That while Chaldeans used the same descriptions, even the Book of Enoch written by the very person that walked with God. Yet, for all them, it was literal as they believed in a flat Earth, but the Jews had it right despite the similarities?

"He streaches the sky above the Earth like a tent." I know you'll try to twist it to fit into our current understanding, but back then people really thought the sky aka Firmament was a solid object holding up an ocean of water[3] and when holes appeared in it, it rained. They couldn't understand that if you got 13 inches of rain, it would cause a wall of water rushing down a river like a dam had burst. They thought floods were caused by celestial "flood gates" placed near the horizon.

There are no expressions that indicate a spherical Earth in the Bible. Each and every single author thought the Earth was flat and it seeped into thier Myths. As I said, you'll take modern understanding and try to make the verses fit, but if it were true then Christians would have already known that the Earth is a spheroid. Instead what we got were people who dared suggest that the Earth was spherical and/or orbited the sun were arrested and some put to death for heresey by the Church. The reason they said something to begin with even though it went against everything they were taught to believe in? Evidence, and spreading the truth is more important that believeing a lie.

Without "trying twist the verses to make them fit"...........This verse like most in Isaiah is poetic and uses figurative language to make a point. The intent of the verse when read in context, is talking about how great God is from Isaiah's point of view. It wasn't a science lesson on the shape of the earth. God obviously hasn't revealed everything there is to know, so His intent must be for us to grow in knowledge as we live in this physical world. None of this makes the book of Isaiah or this verse a lie.

Using poetic symbolism to make a point that God is above all. "To whom then will you liken God?........................... Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.................To whom then will you liken Me"?

Without "trying twist the verses to make them fit"...........This verse like most in Isaiah is poetic and uses figurative language to make a point. The intent of the verse when read in context, is talking about how great God is from Isaiah's point of view. It wasn't a science lesson on the shape of the earth. God obviously hasn't revealed everything there is to know, so His intent must be for us to grow in knowledge as we live in this physical world. None of this makes the book of Isaiah or this verse a lie.

Using poetic symbolism to make a point that God is above all. "To whom then will you liken God?........................... Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.................To whom then will you liken Me"?

You may think that it as only poetic symbolism. But there is no evidence either in the bible or in Jewish cosmology that they had an understanding that the Earth is a spheroid. Remember 2 Tim 3:16? Every word in scripture is God breathed, to be used for study and is inerrant. Since God is All-Knowing, he knew this would come up. So, why didn't he make a footnote like this[1] and say, "xx:yy-zz is just poetic symbolism and not to be taken literally. We know the Earth is really a sphere." Surely such a thing is within the abilities of an All-Powerful God, yes?

While we are at it, there's the little problem of Genesis 1:1-2. Now, Patrick, people say that god created the whole universe - that he is the necessary being so had to have pre-existed the formation of the universe - you know, stuff, like that. So, let's look at Genesis 1:1-2. Here we see that 'the earth was void and covered in water.' It is from this watery earth that the world of the Jews was formed. Nowhere does it mention there was nothing and god created everything. Yes, I know that Deutero Isaiah has some more universal things to say as has Job but they are all based on the world view of a flat earth with a solid dome over the top and heaven sat on top of that. Are we to take this literally or is it some sort of allegory?

Original Question - what evidence is there that god really exists?

we have now managed three pages and who knows how much more but I haven't yet seen any actual evidence for the existence of any gods never mind the one Patrick believes in. Do I take it you have no real evidence for the existence of your god or having you been saving it just for now?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Back to my question about the nature (heh) of the soul. When god creates the soul, does he also create the personality? Or is the soul just like a generic spiritual vanilla pudding to be filled in by the person's DNA and environmental experiences. This is a very important question, because nobody chooses their genetic makeup or the environment they are born into. Nobody chooses to have a genetic tendency to become addicted to drugs or to have teh brain of a sociopath.

Also, you did not address what happens to the person's soul when they become brain-damaged, or if they are severely mentally handicapped. Since we are responsible for the care and feeding of this soul in order to go to heaven, what about people who have no ability to choose to be moral? Remember, if they get a free pass to heaven, that means god makes loopholes.....

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Without "trying twist the verses to make them fit"...........This verse like most in Isaiah is poetic and uses figurative language to make a point. The intent of the verse when read in context, is talking about how great God is from Isaiah's point of view. It wasn't a science lesson on the shape of the earth. God obviously hasn't revealed everything there is to know, so His intent must be for us to grow in knowledge as we live in this physical world. None of this makes the book of Isaiah or this verse a lie.

Using poetic symbolism to make a point that God is above all. "To whom then will you liken God?........................... Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.................To whom then will you liken Me"?

You may think that it as only poetic symbolism. But there is no evidence either in the bible or in Jewish cosmology that they had an understanding that the Earth is a spheroid. Remember 2 Tim 3:16? Every word in scripture is God breathed, to be used for study and is inerrant. Since God is All-Knowing, he knew this would come up. So, why didn't he make a footnote like this[1] and say, "xx:yy-zz is just poetic symbolism and not to be taken literally. We know the Earth is really a sphere." Surely such a thing is within the abilities of an All-Powerful God, yes?

I could ask questions like that of anything in the bible (and have), but it doesn't negate the belief that the bible is inspired by God. Why didn't God divinely give us a cure for the bubonic plague instead of letting millions of people suffer and die? I think there is a reason.

I could ask questions like that of anything in the bible (and have), but it doesn't negate the belief that the bible is inspired by God. Why didn't God divinely give us a cure for the bubonic plague instead of letting millions of people suffer and die? I think there is a reason.

That you think there is a reason doesn't make your conclusion accurate. I think that the black plague was caused by flea bites from insects infected with the bacteria Yersinia pestis. Humans tasked with the job of finding solutions have come up with a class of antibiotics that help stave off infection. That is because we humans don't enjoy necrosis and painful death as much as your god, I guess.

I'm gonna take a wild-assed guess and say that your god is pretty pissed that we've found ways to prevent people from dying of one his favorite diseases. That's probably why he sicced Duck Dynasty on us. At least I think that's the reason.

Unless he doesn't exist. Which would mean humans actually came up with the idea for that TV series. Which disappoints me greatly. But it is the most likely explanation if he isn't real. And the Bubonic Plague is probably just something that evolved, since that is how all life got here. There was never any guarantee that different living things wouldn't conflict with each other. So yea, I'll go with that one.

While we are at it, there's the little problem of Genesis 1:1-2. Now, Patrick, people say that god created the whole universe - that he is the necessary being so had to have pre-existed the formation of the universe - you know, stuff, like that. So, let's look at Genesis 1:1-2. Here we see that 'the earth was void and covered in water.' It is from this watery earth that the world of the Jews was formed. Nowhere does it mention there was nothing and god created everything. Yes, I know that Deutero Isaiah has some more universal things to say as has Job but they are all based on the world view of a flat earth with a solid dome over the top and heaven sat on top of that. Are we to take this literally or is it some sort of allegory?

Original Question - what evidence is there that god really exists?

we have now managed three pages and who knows how much more but I haven't yet seen any actual evidence for the existence of any gods never mind the one Patrick believes in. Do I take it you have no real evidence for the existence of your god or having you been saving it just for now?

Genesis 1:14 is good enough for me to believe He created everything. I gave you my reasons for belief at the beginning of the thread. If that isn't good enough, then there's nothing that I can do about it. God is not a genie in a bottle for me to call out and "prove" to everyone. The bible unapologetically states that we come to know God through humility and faith. My belief boiled down, is that God does something existential in me that causes me to believe that there is something more than just the physical. Yet, at the same time, nature points to a creator (something doesn't come from absolutely nothing). The story of Christ speaks to me in a real way. I don't see how the gospel could have been manufactured with ulterior motives. The gospel message radically went against societal norms of that day and has over time transformed people and cultures, even today. My life is better, I'm able to give people grace because I recognize that I'm a sinner and no better than the next person. I have more peace and joy in my life than I ever have, despite having questions and life difficulties. But that is part of the growth process that God seems to want us to experience. I admit these things will not likely convince someone who against even the idea of a biblical God.